Monday, July 10, 2017

(Purva Paksha: the first Swadeshi Indology Conference,
Chennai, July 2016)

abstract

Sheldon Pollock is by no means the first one to build
on the mythology that has overgrown the factual core of a link between racism
in general, National-Socialism in particular, and the study of Indo-European
and Sanskrit. In his case, the alleged National-Socialist connection of
Sanskrit is heavily over-interpreted and emphatically taken to be causal, as if
the interest in Sanskrit has caused the Holocaust. We verify the claims on
which he erects this thesis one by one, and find them surprisingly weak or
simply wrong. They could only have been made in a climate in which a vague
assumption of these links (starting with the swastika, which in reality was not
taken from Hinduism) was already common. Yet, even non-specialists could easily
have checked that Adolf Hitler expressed his contempt for Hinduism, repeatedly
and in writing.

Pollock’s attempt to even link the Out-of-India Theory
with the Nazi worldview is the diametrical opposite of the truth; it was the
rivalling Aryan Invasion Theory (which Pollock himself upholds) that formed the
cornerstone and perfect illustration of the Nazi worldview. This linking could
only pass peer review because of the general animus against Hinduism and
Indo-European indigenism in American academe. The whole forced attempt to
associate Hinduism with National-Socialism suggests a rare animosity against
Hinduism.,

+++++++++

Sheldon
Pollock’s Idea of a “National-Socialist Indology”

Sheldon
Pollock, professor of Sanskrit at Columbia University, links Sanskrit with the
Holocaust, no less. Or at least, his critics (Malhotra 2016, Paranjape 2016) cite him to
that effect. But according to Tony Joseph (2016), one of Pollock’s declared
defenders, “the anti-Pollock campaign is based on quotes stripped out of their
context”. Be that as it may in general, in the present paper we will take care
to put Pollock’s utterances on the links between the Sanskrit tradition and
National-Socialism (NS, Nazism) in context. As it happens, in this case, there
is simply no context that could possibly render Pollock’s position harmless,
for it is the single worst allegation possible in contemporary Western culture,
viz. responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust. Nevertheless, we will give due
attention to this context.

A somewhat
frivolous element from the immediate context was that NS Germany was hosting
Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose. (“Jana Gana Mana, independent
India’s national anthem, was first performed in an imposing celebration at the
inauguration of the Deutsch-Indische
Gesellschaft in Hamburg on 11 September 1942, for Bose had chosen it as
free India’s national anthem”. (Hartog 2001:iv))But that context can perhaps best be left
undiscussed, for the regiment that Bose had formed, was anything but Hindu
traditionalist. Far from inspiring caste hierarchy into their NS hosts, Bose’s
soldiers were not organized by caste, unlike those in the British-Indian army. Bose was a socialist, a progressive, on
the same anti-caste wavelength as Pollock; but the Nazis never held that
against him.

So let us
see what Pollock himself chooses to focus on.

The centuries before National-Socialism

In his overview of pre-Nazi German Indology, Pollock only follows the
received wisdom when he stereotypes 19th-century German scholarship. He credits
the German Orientalists with the creation of Wissenschaft, the scholarly canons that became normative in academe
worldwide, with an ideal of objectivity (as in the definition of historiography
by Leopold von Ranke, mentioned by Pollock 1993:84: reconstructing events “as
they have been in reality”); but also with a frantic search for a German
national identity. In that project, they used the Sanskrit tradition, viz. as
partially preserving the “Aryan” identity that, through Indo-European (Indogermanisch or Arisch) linguistic unity, could inspire any German cultural
self-identification.

Like so many contemporary scholars of the field, including Hindus and
Muslims, he assumes the conceptual framework of Edward Said’s thesis Orientalism (1978). There, Said analyses
the academic discipline of Orientalism (formally: “Oriental Philology and
History”, as still on this writer’s diploma) as but an instrument for control,
a method used by the colonial powers to dominate the natives of the Orient.
This claim has been lambasted as riddled with factual errors and as
conceptually a conspiracy theory by Irwin (2006), Warraq (2007) and Elst
(2012), but has taken academe by storm and is now cited as gospel.

Pollock (1993:114) gives a nod to the existence of a “pre-orientalist
orientalism”, a scholarship originating in the Catholic Church’s late-medieval
attempts to reconnect with the Oriental Churches and to study its Islamic
rival, when Europe had no colonies yet. Yet he formulates his own career
project in Saidian terms: “Moving beyond orientalism finally presupposes moving
beyond the culture of domination and the politics of coercion that have
nurtured orientalism in all its varieties, and been nurtured by it in turn.” (Pollock
1993:117)

The expression “orientalism in all its varieties” refers, among other
things, to the special nature of Orientalism in its mainstay, German-speaking
Central Europe. Unlike France and England, Germany had initially no colonies,
and later only some colonies far from the Orient. This fact should refute
Said’s whole thesis, but he neutralizes it by keeping German Orientalism
outside the purview of his book. (Later, this gap was filled by Marchand 2009
and, for Indology, by Adluri & Baggchee 2014) According to Pollock
(1993:83), Germany practised its own Orientalism in an attempt to solve its “problem of identity”, and more consequentially, “to
colonize Europe, and Germany itself, from within”, in a “German allomorph of British imperialism”. And here we see, with a big
stretch, the connection between the proverbial German scholarship of the 19th
century and the Nazi project of empire. Just as British Orientalism was evil by
being a concoction in the service of empire-building, German Orientalism was
evil by its connection with hyper-nationalism and genocide. That, at least, is
Pollock’s message.

Nazi
investment in Indology

Modern scholars devote a lot of time to studying every
possible dimension of the NS polity and ideology, including the work of anyone
thought to have NS ties, such as the philosopher and NS party member Martin
Heidegger: ‘Like the predicament of Indology, that
of humanistic studies in general has belatedly seized the attention of
scholars, as

And so, Pollock includes his own specialism, Indology, among the
culprits. The indictment: “In German Indology of the NS era, a largely
nonscholarly mystical nativism deriving ultimately from a mixture of
romanticism and protonationalism merged with that objectivism of Wissenschaft
earlier described, and together they fostered the ultimate

The allegation is extremely serious. Yet, he never quotes any of those
Indologists as actually declaring they want genocide; or that the aim of their
professional choice is genocide. Since, moreover, genocide is somehow declared
to be the ultimate finality of Orientalism, this seems also to indict the
French and British Orientalists. Alright, he fails to prove that rather
unlikely point; but what does he prove?

He claims a “substantial increase in the investment on the part of the
NS state in Indology and ‘Indo-Germanistik.’ Both [Heinrich] Himmler and [Alfred]
Rosenberg sponsored institutes centrally concerned with ‘Indo-Germanische
Geistesgeschichte’.” (Pollock 1993:95) Note the sly cursory shift from Indology
to “Indo-Germanistik”: the former deals with India and, as we shall see,
received no increased interest from the NS regime at all; while the latter
deals with Europe and especially Germany, the putative racial heir of the
Indo-Europeans, and became the centre of NS attention.

In fact, the proof he himself adduces, proves something else than an
increased German interest in Indology. He compares a total of 26 full professors
of "Aryan" orientalism in Germany with just 4 in England, the
colonial metropole – but for the year 1903 (detailed in Rhys-Davids 1904). This
had nothing to do with a NS penchant for India, for this special German
interest in the Orient existed since long before (and incidentally, makes minced
meat of Said’s linking Orientalism with the colonial entreprise).

In support, Pollock refers to a primary source, the Minerva Jahrbücher,
an annuary with academic data. But after thoroughly checking these, the
contemporary German Indologist from Göttingen, Reinhold Grünendahl (2012:95), shows
these data to confirm an uneventful continuity with pre-NS days: “As was the case with the 1933/34 volume and Rhys
Davids’s paper of 1904, none serve to corroborate Pollock’s presumptions. The
same holds for recent evidence-based studies that in any way pertain to such
issues […], all of which confirm that Pollock’s deep ruminations on ‘the political
economy of Indology in Germany in the period 1800–1945’ (1993: 118n5) are
entirely unfounded. Nevertheless, his attendant admonition

that this is an ‘important question’ awaiting ‘serious analysis’ (118n5)
has become a kind of gospel, recited by others […] with increasing confidence,
but with very little to show as yet in terms of substantiation. Yet, all this
while, dozens of ‘histories of German Indology’ are built on the—still
unfulfilled—promises of that gospel.”

In his researches, Grünendahl (2012:194) has checked Rhys-Davids’
writings and discovered a telling example of how the racialist “NS” worldview
was already present in Britain earlier: “However, a more important factor seems
to me to be Rhys Davids’s racialist—or more precisely Aryanist—bias,
documented, for example, in statements to the effect that

Gautama Buddha ‘was the only man of our own race, the only Aryan, who
can rank as the founder of a great religion’ and that therefore ‘the whole
intellectual and religious development of which Buddhism is the final outcome
was distinctively Aryan, and Buddhism is the one essentially Aryan faith’
(1896:185), which ‘took its rise among an advancing

and conquering people full of pride in their colour and their race… ‘ (1896:187).”

But Pollock (1993:94) has a point when he notes that a number of
Indologists were NS party members or SS officials, e.g. Walther Wüst, Erich Frauwallner, Jakob
Hauer, Richard Schmidt. He estimates these as one-third of the Indology
professors. He admits that there was a silent opposition too, e.g. when Wüst
became board member of the Deutsche
Morgenländische Gesellschaft (“German Oriental Society”), “the aged Geiger [= Wilhelm Geiger, Wüst’s
mentor] objected privately to the behavior of Wüst.” (Pollock 1993:123) And
that may have been the tip of an iceberg, though we will not hazard a guess on
the proportion of open resisters, silent resisters, fence-sitters and
collaborators.

Functionalism

Pollock gives the impression of a rather shaky grasp on
NS history. It is, after all, not his field. Rather than properly delving into
it in preparation of this ambitious paper, he seems to have gone by the
received wisdom prevalent in his own liberal circles. The charitable explanation is that, not being a historian of WW2, he
simply overstepped the boundaries of his competence. The alternative is that he
deliberately forged this claim about Indology and National-Socialism as a
weapon, in this case against the Sanskrit tradition. Some popular writers (e.g.
Pennick 1981) have indeed done something similar, often after classifying Hindu
ideas like reincarnation in the “occult” category. They have correctly sensed the
windfall of benefits, whether political or commercial, guaranteed to whomever
manages to instrumentalize references to National-Socialism.

He claims that “the extermination of the Jews would seem to pose a serious challenge to
any purely functionalist explanation of National Socialism.” (Pollock 1993:88) Perhaps there was still some room for
doubt in 1993, and though marginal, the hypothesis of “intentionalism”, viz.
that the genocide of the Jews was planned since the beginning of the Nazi
movement, was still in existence in erudite company. This hypothesis would
imply, in a maximalist interpretation (viz. that any supporter of
National-Socialism wilfully supported all of its programme), that NS Indologists
like Fauwallner or Hauer supported “genocide”.

Strictly speaking, Hindus have no reason to defend these Indologists,
for none of them was Hindu, and they projected a non-Hindu NS framework onto
Hindu texts. Given the complexity of the reasons for a man’s inclinations,
their interest in the Sanskrit traditions implies nothing at all about the
Sanskrit tradition itself. Nevertheless, it is worth observing that even if
these scholars were party members, this does not mean they supported genocide,
for that item was not on the party programme. Anti-Semitism is bad (and of
that, they can certainly be held guilty) but genocide is something else again.
Even when it was later decided upon, it was still carried out in secrecy because
the top Nazis knew that it would offend the German population including many
party members.

Today, no historian worth his salt takes this intentionalism serious
anymore, though it lives on in Hollywood stereotyping. Apart from unsupported
by facts, intentionalism also sins against the reigning postmodernist canon by
being “essentialist”, i.e. positing an irreducible unchanging nature to NS
ideology; when even that turns out to be historical and changeble under the
impact of circumstances. The “functionalist” hypothesis has won the day, viz.
that the idea of genocide only came about in a chain of unforeseen decisions
under war circumstances in 1940-41. Even then it was carried out in secrecy: as
late as 1943, Jewish Councils in occupied countries co-operated in the
deportation of their own community, thinking Auschwitz was merely a labour
camp. You could be a NS party member and support the idea of a Jew-free Europe
(through emigration, as had happened in the 1930s) yet not support nor even
know about genocide. To be sure, ethnic cleansing is reprehenssible too, but it
is not genocide. Scholars ought to exercise a sense of proportion.

For political campaigners living in the relative comforts of the
post-war era, it is easy to laugh at the German commoners’ 1945 profession: Wir haben das nicht gewusst (“We didn’t
know about it”); but very often, it was formally the truth. Again, supporting
the NS regime was bad enough; but it was something else than support for
genocide. Pollock, voracious quoter that he is, can at any rate not cite any NS
Indologist as expressing support for genocide.

But suppose, just suppose, that tomorrow, an incriminating statement by
one of those Indologists gets discovered. Well, he is a human being,
susceptible to all kinds of influences, not just those from his field of
specialism. It would then still remain to be proven that the Sanskrit tradition
which he studied, had given him this inspiration for genocide. Sanskrit writers
can be accused of teaching inequality through caste, and Pollock does indeed do
so, but it has not been quoted here (nor, as far as is known, anywhere else)
that the Vedas or Śāstras preach
genocide.

Now, if Vedic literature ever enjoined (not even just recounted, but
actually enjoined) genocide, there is no doubt that the Dalit movement, the
missionaries, the “secularists”, the Khalistanis, the many anti-Hindu
India-watchers, and perhaps Pollock himself, would gleefully quote it. Not that
they ever quote the instances of genocide in the Bible or in the traditions
about Mohammed, but for Hinduism they would not be that polite. Indeed, it would
have been logical to quote it very prominently in this very paper, as it would
prove its entire point. But it seems not to exist.

Anti-Semitism and the Sanskrit Tradition

While genocide entered the mind of some top Nazis only
by 1941, another element always associated with the NS ideology was intrinsic
to it since the beginning, and very prominent in its writings since ca. 1920
and in policies since 1933: anti-Semitism. While Pollock takes as a matter of
courses that to the Nazis, “Aryan” was the opposite of “Semitic”, he doesn’t
furnish any fact or quote at all that would meaningfully link this with the
Sanskrit tradition.

He correctly notes that the NS view of the Vedas was through an
anti-Semitic lens: “The Ŗg-Veda as an Aryan text ‘free of any taint of
Semitic contact’; the ‘almost Nordic zeal’ that lies in the Buddhist conception
of the marga [way]; the ‘Indo-Germanic religion-force’ of yoga; the
sense of race and the ‘conscious desire for racial protection’; the ‘volksnahe
kingship’ such is the meaning of the Indo-Aryan past for the National
Socialist present, a present that, for Wüst, could not be understood without
this past.” (Pollock 1993:89)

Yes, that is how the Nazis saw it because they were
racist and anti-Semitic to begin with. But the knowledge of the Sanskrit
tradition could add absolutely nothing to that. There was nothing in the Vedas
themselves that suggested anti-Semitism, it was entirely in the eye of the
beholder. Anti-Semitism existed in Europe ever since the people became
convinced, through Christianity, that the Jews had been responsible for Jesus’
death. Modern nationalism added an ideal of homogenization, so that Jews were
wished away as an obstacle to this ideal. By contrast, Vedic literature doesn’t
know of Jews at all, and Hindu history has only shown a pluralistic hospitality
for the Jewish communities on the Malabar coast, complete with their
distinctive traditions.

In fact, that pluralism and respect for different
identities could be cited as a redeeming feature of the caste system targeted
so systematically by Pollock. Hindu reformers who deny the intimate link
between caste and Hinduism during the past twenty or so centuries are wrong.
But they might start by enumerating some redeeming features, such as the sense
of belonging-to (rather than of being-excluded-from), and pluralism. Within the
caste framework, nobody’s comfort or identity was threatened when a foreign
community was added. At any rate, the really existing caste system did not
include anti-Semitism.

The only thing Pollock can come up with here, in a
footnote, is this: “The ratio ārya : caṇḍāla [outcaste,
untouchable] :: German : Jew was made already by Nietzsche”. (Pollock 1993:119)
Friedrich Nietzsche was popular among top Nazis, but they read him selectively,
leaving out the positions that would not have endeared him to an NS regime. He
disliked German nationalism and especially anti-Semitism as, at least, vulgar.

Nevertheless, it is true that Nietzsche (Twilight of the Idols: The ‘Improvers’ of Mankind 3) speculated on
the Jews’ origin as emigrated Caṇḍālas,
Untouchables, based on more speculations by the amateur-Indologist Louis
Jacolliot. We have discussed this question in full detail elsewhere (Elst
2008), but briefly, it all hinges on the mistranslation of the word dauścarmya, “having a skin defect”, from
the enumeration of Caṇḍāla traits in
the classical law code Manu Smṛti (10:52,
but based on 11:49). This word was understood as “missing a piece of skin”, hence
“circumcised”. In reality, Manu nowhere mentions circumcised ones, whether Jews
or Muslims.

Moreover, Nietzsche’s account doesn’t fit the neat scheme given by Pollock.
Nietzsche recognized that in some ways, Jews do not fit the dirty and
submissive stereotype of outcastes at all, and have been characterized by Aryan
traits ever since their entry into history. They ennobled themselves by
becoming warriors and conquering their “promised land”. They are
stereotypically very money-savvy, like the trader caste, and their obsessive purity
rules and book-orientedness remind one of the Brahmin caste. Whereas
Untouchables do the dirty work at funerals, Jewish priests or Kohanim are expected to stay away from
corpses. Jews were demonized by the Nazis, but not as low-castes.

Unlike the stereotype of Caṇḍālas
(more applicable to the Gypsies, known to descend from Indian low-castes and
despised by the Nazis), the Jews were considered as rich, powerful,
manipulative and extremely clever. Jews definitely did not relate to Germans
the way Hindu low-castes relate to the upper castes. And anyway, the NS policy
regarding the Jews was not based on this Nietzsche quote.

The “Aryan” homeland question

The official
birth of Indo-European linguistics by William Jones’s famous Kolkata speech in
1786 (set on a scientific footing by Franz Bopp in 1816, as recognized by
Pollock 1993:84) set in motion the search for the original homeland of this
language family. The initial favourite was India, as famously stated by
Friedrich von Schlegel (cited by Pollock 1993:85). In the present context, it
might be a significant detail that Schlegel “married the daughter of the Jewish
philosopher Moses Mendelssohn”, for which he was reproached as “missing racial
instinct”. (Poliakov 1971:217) Many other scholars from this period can be
cited to the same effect, e.g. in 1810, Jakob-Joseph Görres had Abraham come
from Kashmir. (Poliakov 1971:219)

In the next decades, the putative homeland was relocated westwards, but
Pollock (1993:77) claims that the Germans “continued, however subliminally, to
hold the nineteenth-century conviction that the origin of European civilization
was to be found in India (or at least that India constituted a genetically
related sibling)”.

This insinuates that the Nazis still believed in an Indian homeland
whereas the British and their allies had long converted to the idea of a more
westerly homeland. This much is true, that the NS state was intensely
interested in the question of Indo-European origins: Communist states “employ
myths of utopia, while fascist systems employ myths of origins”. (Pollock
1993:85) But then, Pollock artfully smuggles in a continuity between the
earlier Out-of-India hypothesis and the preferred NS location of the homeland.
The NS state’s legitimation by “Aryan” origins “had been provided early in
nineteenth-century Indian orientalism; a benchmark is Friedrich von Schlegel's
identification (1819) of the ‘Arier’ as ‘our Germanic ancestors, while they were
still in Asia’ (Sieferle 1987:460). In the later NS search for authenticity,
Sanskritists, like other intellectuals ‘experts in legitimation’, as Gramsci
put it, did their part in extrapolating and deepening this discourse.” (Pollock
1993:85; Antonio Gramsci was the Italian Communist leader who, ca. 1930,
theorized the acquisition of cultural hegemony as a prerequisite for political
revolution.)

Note also this adroit suggestion of Indian paternity in this quotation
from the NS Indologist Walther Wüst: “I know of no more striking example of
this hereditary, long-term tradition than the ingenious synopsis contained in
the brief words of the Führer and the longer confession of the great aryan
personality of antiquity, the Buddha. There is only one explanation for this,
and that is the basic explanation for components of the National-Socialist
world-view: the circumstance, the basic fact of racial constitution. And thanks
to fate, this was preserved through the millennia . . . [through] the holy
concept of ancestral heritage [Ahnenerbe].” (Pollock: 1993:90)

Note that in all Pollock’s quotations from NS Indologists, only one
Hindu is mentioned by name, repeatedly: the Buddha. He tries to make the Mīmāṁsā thinkers with their chiseling of
Śāstra law into an inspiration to the
Nazis (as if they needed Mīmāṁsā to conceive
of inequality), but never manages to find a Nazi quote about them. None, for
example, about the 12th-century Śāstra
commentator Bhaṭṭa Lakṣmidhāra, whom he himself drags
in frequently as justifying societal hierarchy. On the other hand he
presents the Buddha as an antidote to Vedic inequality, yet that same Buddha
turns out to be very popular among the Nazis.

There was no NS belief in an Indian homeland at all, on the contrary. To
be sure, there was a belief in a racial kinship with the ancient “Aryans” in
India, freshly invaded from their more westerly homeland. Of Nordic origin,
these Aryans brought their talents into India and gave expression to them in
ancient writings, and these naturally showed a kinship with Greek thought and
other “Aryan” achievements in Europe.

Thus, NS Indologist Erich Frauwallner says, in
Pollock’s account (Pollock 1993:93): “Frauwallner argued that the special
meaning of Indian philosophy lay in its being ‘a typical creation of an aryan
people’, that its similarities with western philosophy derived from ‘the same
racially determined talent’, and that it was a principal scholarly task of Indology
to demonstrate this fact. Reiterating an axiom of NS doctrine, that ‘Wissenschaft
in the strict sense of the word is something that could be created only by
nordic Indo-Germans’, Frauwallner adds, ‘From the agreement in scientific
character of Indian and European philosophy, we can draw the further conclusion that
philosophy as an attempt to explain the world according to scientific method is
likewise a typical creation of the Aryan mind.’"

India was not important to the Nazis because they saw it as their
ancestral land (they did not), but because it illustrated the Nazi worldview:
(1) dynamic white Aryans enter the land of indolent dark people; (2) they
subjugate them in a racially-conceived caste system, a kind of Apartheid; (3)
in spite of trying for racial purity, they succumb too often to the charms of
native women, so they racially degenerate; and therefore, (4) they ended up
overpowered by whiter races, first the Turks and then, mercifully, their own purer
Aryan cousins from Britain. Since the mid-19th century, this worldview had
already been promoted by Britain, meanwhile it had been fortified by the
ascendence of Darwinism (“struggle for life”, “survival of the fittest”) and
finally acquired an extra intensity in NS Germany.

In the first years of the renewed debate on the Indo-European homeland, it
was a common confusion that the Out-of-India theory, disappeared after Schlegel
but now back in strength, had something NS about it, e.g. Zydenbos 1993. This
confusion was deliberately fostered by some Indian “secularists” trying to
criminalize the Indian homeland hypothesis, e.g. Sikand 1993. In reality, the
NS theorists as well as the NS textbooks emphasized and highlighted the
putative European homeland and concomitant invasion into India. Zydenbos and
Sikand themselves were in Hitler’s camp.

The confusion centred on the word Aryan,
of Sanskrit origin. In NS discourse, this was routinely interpreted in a racial
sense, though race was here not just skin colour but also had a cultural
component. Thus, both Sanskrit and German could only be such precise and
structured languages because they emanated from racially predisposed nations
(and the “degeneration” of Sanskrit to the much looser modern Indian languages
is thus a consequence of racial degeneration). In vulgar propaganda, the
linguistic, cultural and biological dimensions were completely confounded, but
this even influenced high-brow discourse: “An example of this more
sophisticated orientalism is the work of Paul Thieme”, Harvard Sanskritist
Michael Witzel’s revered teacher, esp. his “analysis of the Sanskrit word ārya,
where at the end he adverts to the main point of his research: to go beyond
India in order to catch the ‘distant echo of Indo-germanic customs’.” (Pollock
1993:91)

From Adolf
Hitler’s mouth, no words in praise of Hinduism are known. A few expressions of
contempt, yes, e.g. Subhas Bose’s army: “Hitler himself ridiculed the 3000-man strong regiment of Indians.”
(Hartog 2001:iii) But there is one statement of
importance in the present context. Among Hitler’s rare utterances on
the Hindus was a racial interpretation of the AIT. These are his own words (Jäckel & Kuhn 1980:195,
quoting Hitler 1920): “Wir wissen, dass die Hindu in Indien ein Volk sind,
gemischt aus den hochstehenden arischen Einwanderern und der dunkelschwarzen
Urbevölkerung, und dass dieses Volk heute die folgen trägt; denn es ist auch
das Sklavenvolk einer Rasse, die uns in vielen Punkten nahezu als zweite
Judenheit erscheinen darf.”(“We know that the Hindus in India are a people mixed
from the lofty Aryan immigrants and the dark-black aboriginal population, and
that this people is bearing the consequences today; for it is also the slave
people of a race that almost seems like a second Jewry.”)

For Grünendahl, this is merely an example of
how the primary sources of German history contradict the free-for-all that
amateurs make of it. Joseph
(2016) dismisses Grünendahl’s many factual data as only to be expected from a
“German”, an ad hominem against a whole nation, as well as a covert admission
that he cannot refute even one of them. Grünendahl (2012:196) had noted the
same inability in an earlier Pollock defender, Vishwa Adluri (2011): when
challenging the many facts mustered by Grünendahl, Adluri neither shows
Grünendahl’s data to be incorrect, nor does he bring other facts proving
Pollock’s case: “a pitiable want of judgment as
well as evidence.”

But the objective finality of Pollock’s thesis is more
specific, viz. to blacken the Indian homeland hypothesis by associating it with
National-Socialism. Reality, however, is just the opposite: more even than
other Europeans, the Nazis espoused and upheld a westerly homeland and the
invasion hypothesis. This invasion happens to be a corner-stone of Pollock’s
worldview, with invader castes guilty of expropriating and subjugating the
natives, who became the lower castes. Hitler-Pollock, same struggle!

To end this discussion on an element of nuance,
however, we have to note an odd passage.

Though Pollock repeatedly affirms NS belief in what is nowadays called
the Out-of-India theory, and assumes this throughout his paper, honesty demands
that we mention how one time, very cursorily, he nods to the opposite (and
true) scenario: “From among the complexities of NS analysis of the Urheimat
question it is worth calling attention to the way the nineteenth-century view
expressed by Schlegel was reversed: the original Indo-Europeans were now
variously relocated in regions of the Greater German Reich; German thereby
became the language of the core (Binnensprache), whereas Sanskrit was
transformed into one of its peripheral, ‘colonial’ forms.” (Pollock 1993: 91-92)

Even this is not entirely true, for the dominant opinion was that the
homeland was to the east or southeast of Germany, while even the SS research
department Ahnenerbe explored
locating the homeland in Atlantis: fanciful, but at least outside Germany. Still,
Pollock’s statement does justice to the NS worldview by denying India the
honour of being the homeland. It explains why we often see a shift in the focus
of NS Indologists from India to “Indo-European” or “Aryan” issues, racially
identified with Nordic. Thus, in 1934 Jakob Hauer still wrote on “Indo-Aryan”
metaphysics of struggle, but in 1937 he published on the religious history of
the “Indo-Europeans”. Pollock’s own enumeration of supposedly India-related
activities usually confuses “Indian” with “Indo-European”, i.e. “Aryan” or
essentially “Nordic”. It is only by confusing those two that an impression of a
NS orientation towards India can be created.

National-Socialism
and the Sanskrit tradition

Two factors of
a seeming connection between Hinduism and NS Germany are unavoidable: the
swastika and the term ārya. About the
swastika, the matter is simple: it does not come from India. It is a more
widespread symbol, very prominent e.g. in Troy, excavated by a German, and part
of Greek history which was a decisive inspiration to Germany’s academic
culture. It was also very common in the Baltic area, where German army veterans
formed Freikorps militias to defeat the Bolsheviks in 1918-20. When they came
home, often to join nationalist parties, they brought the swastika with
them.(More detail in Elst 2007) The NS
view was that it was Nordic in origin, and that it only became common in India
after having been imported by the Aryans.

As Sünner
(1999:66) puts it: “the
hooked cross, which the Nordic cult of light carried into the Orient”. Indeed,
this was part of a general septentriocentric worldview: “Unconcerned about
historic truth, their builders were termed as ‘Indo-European Urvolk’ and
‘heroes of the North’, who later co-founded the civilizations of Egypt, India
and Persia.” (Sünner 1999:60-61) India was not in the picture, except as a
distant horizon to be conquered and civilized by Norsemen.

As for Aryan: “The term ārya itself merits
intellectual-historical study (and I mean diachronic analysis, not static
etymology) for premodern India at least of the sort Arier has received
for modern Europe.” (Pollock 1993:107) True, Hindus too might learn a lot from
realizing that this term is historical, that it has gone through changes, and
that the classical meaning “noble” (a meaning unattested in the Ŗg-Veda) has mundane roots too. Yet,
Pollock does no more than focus on the Manu
Smṛti, fairly late and worn-out as a supposed repository of caste teachings
and anti-egalitarian musings about ārya
vs. anārya.

Moreover, Pollock (1993: 107-8) brings
in the concept of race: “From such factors as the semantic
realm of the distinction
ārya/anāryaand the biogenetic map of inequality (along with less
theorized material, from Vedic and epic literature, for instance), it may seem
warranted to speak about a ‘pre-form of racism’ in early India (Geissen 1988:
48ff.), especially in a discussion of indigenous ‘orientalism’, since in both
its classic colonial and its National Socialist form orientalism is inseparable
from racism.”

That is certainly the NS reading, but from a top
Indologist, we might have expected an explanation of whether this was the
Indians’ own intended reading. He doesn’t go into this question at all but
confidently assumes an indubitably positive answer. To exonerate him, we might
take this as merely a logical application of the Aryan invasion scenario,
firmly established since the mid-19th century: the Aryans came in, met a
different race of aboriginals, and imposed a racial Apartheid on them: the
caste system. So, in a way, the case against Pollock is the case against Western
Indology as a whole.

His arguments about the inequality fostered by the Śāstras thus always has a racial dimension. Caste is too big a
subject to argue out here, but let us notice that he has no problem mustering
incriminating quotations excluding low-castes from Vedic knowledge. He does
acknowledge feeble dissenting voices, such as the early Mīmāṁsā thinker Bādari,
who argued that Śūdras too can build Vedic fires for sacrifice, since "the
Śūdra desires heaven, too (…) and what is it in a sacrifice that any man can do
but that the Śūdra is unable to do?" (Pollock 1993:109) But the over-all
picture is decidedly inegalitarian. However, inequality is a nearly equally
distributed good, and for that value, the Nazis could have found inspiration in
other societies, if they needed any at all, such as the Arab or colonial slave
systems.

Inequality yes, but racial, no. All this depends on
the racial reading of Sanskrit concepts, starting with the enumeration of four
social functions (without a word about how to recruit for them) in late-Vedic
hymn RV 10.90, “the locus classicus in the Veda” for caste division. Even “the
biology” is said to be “of course latent in the RV passage”, though he
does not say how and other readers cannot find a trace of it. (Pollock 1993:125)
All this follows from the Aryan invasion scenario, and on this point, there is
no chance of refuting Pollock unless the homeland debate is waged all over.

At any rate, none of these interesting musings about
Indian society played any role whatsoever in NS policies. Pollock (1993:86-87)
is only projecting his own focus when his Indologist’s eye recognizes caste
phenomena in NS policies: “The myth of Aryan origins burst from the world of
dream into that of reality when the process of what I suggest we think

of as an internal colonization of Europe began to be,
so to speak, shastrically codified, within two months of the National Socialists'
capturing power (April 1933). The ‘Law on the Reconstitution of the German
Civil Service’, the ‘Law on the Overcrowding of German Schools’, and a host of
supplementary laws and codicils of that same month were the first in a decade
dense with legal measures designed to exclude Jews and other minority communities
from the apparatuses of power (including ‘authoritative’ power, the schools and
universities), and to regulate a wide range of social, economic, and biological
activities.”

Finally, another point of difference between NS racism and caste society
is this. The relation between the Germans and the “inferior” races was
conceived as hierarchical, but the NS conception of German society was not as a
hierarchy: all members of the master race were deemed reasonably equal. Hitler
himself had climbed up from down below; there was no objection against social
mobility. Germans were not to be held inside the class they happened to be born
into, unlike the low-caste Hindus in Pollock’s oft-stated view.

In this connection, Hitler himself objected to the idea of a hereditary
priesthood. Though he doesn’t name it, this could be applied to the Brahmin
caste: “The Catholic Church recruits its clergy in principle from all classes
of society, without discrimination. A simple cowherd can become cardinal. That
is why the Church remains combattive.” (Pierik 2012:83, quoting Hitler’s table
talk of 2 November 1941) So, even in his anti-Brahminism, Pollock finds himself
in Hitler’s camp.

The banalization of criminalizing Hinduism

In his conclusion, Pollock digresses about the future
of his scholarly discipine. There, he takes for granted the connection he has
earlier posited between Sanskrit and the Holocaust. In an entirely
non-polemical tone, he off-hand builds on this putative connection: “How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj
and Auschwitz in a world of pretty well tattered scholarly paradigms?” (Pollock
1993:114)

In the process of disinformation, an idea is first launched and argued
in high-brow papers like the New York
Review or the Economic and Political
Weekly; subsequently it is presented as the received wisdom in more general
media, like the Washington Post or
the Times of India; but the final
stage is when the idea is presented as a matter of course, and conveyed through
popular media, women’s magazines etc. That is what completes the instilling of
false ideas in the popular mind.

Similarly, to promote an idea intended to become a fixture in our
worldview, it is useful to repeat it, first as a topical proposal to be proven,
then as a theorem deemed to have been proven, finally as a truism on which
other proposals can safely be built.

Yet, we don’t hold Pollock as an individual guilty of this disinformation.
Though his authoritative voice does its bit to determine the Zeitgeist, he was
mainly surfing on an already-existing Zeitgeist.

Firstly, the tendency to project the Nazi episode onto something morbid
and unique in the more distant German past, and particularly the exoticization
of 19th-century Germany’s supposed self-doubt and search for an
identity, was already very common in the preceding decades (e.g. Poliakov 1971),
and still is to some extent.

Secondly, the link between Hinduism (as well as Lamaism) and Nazi
culture had already been proposed by a number of writers. Moreover, it
converges with a widespread revulsion among Westerners against the caste
system, which they liken to slavery and identify, through the Aryan invasion
hypothesis, with racism. This misses the warlike element in National-Socialism,
but that is slightly made up for by all the stories about Hindu riots and by
the symmetry fallacy whenever Muslim violence comes in the news: “Ah, but all
religions do it; Hinduism must have a similar terrorism.” Even then, it still
doesn’t have the element of “genocide”, but Pollock remains determined to read
that into it.

Conclusion

It is one thing to hold a view that, upon analysis, turns out to be
mistaken. To err is but human. However, one should become extra careful when
the view one expresses, is an allegation. It becomes even more serious when it
is the worst allegation one can possibly make, viz. the accusation of
responsibility for the Holocaust.

The situation with allegations is simple: either you prove them, or you
yourself are guilty of slander. This then can be held against Pollock: he has
made a grave allegation, yet has failed to buttress it with proof, though not
for lack of trying.

The question which Hindus should contemplate, then, is this one. Should
the Sanskrit tradition be given in care to a pofessor of Sanskrit who stands by
such a grave though false allegation against it?

About Me

Koenraad Elst (°Leuven 1959) distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and to dissent. After a few hippie years he studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998.
As an independent researcher he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi's legacy. He also published on the interface of religion and politics, correlative cosmologies, the dark side of Buddhism, the reinvention of Hinduism, technical points of Indian and Chinese philosophies, various language policy issues, Maoism, the renewed relevance of Confucius in conservatism, the increasing Asian stamp on integrating world civilization, direct democracy, the defence of threatened freedoms, and the Belgian question. Regarding religion, he combines human sympathy with substantive skepticism.